LexUNION OF INDIA versus RAJ KUMAR BAGHAL SINGH (DEAD) TH. LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 709 UNION OF INDIA v. RAJ KUMAR BAGHAL SINGH (DEAD) TH. LRS. & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7314-7365 OF 2005) SEPTEMBER 09, 2014 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s. 4 - Compensation - Determining factors - Held: In determining compensation for C acquired land, it is the price paid in a bona fide transaction of sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer which is relevant subject to such transaction being adjacent to acquired land, proximate to the date of acquisition and possessing similar advantages - There are other well known methods of valuaJion D like opinion of experts and yield method - In absence of any evidence of a similar transaction, it is permissible to takeinto account transaction of nearest land around the date of notification uls.4 of the Act by making a suitable allowance - There can be no fixed criteria as to what would be the suitable E addition or subtraction from the value of the relied upon transaction - The extent of cut depends on individual fact situations - The existing potentiality alone has to be taken into consideration while determining the compensation - Remote beneficial factors cannot be made the basis for determining F the compensation - Comparable sales method is a preferred method over the other methods for determining the compensation - In the instant case, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no ground to interfere with the order of the High Court. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 14th March, 1989 to acquire 72.9375 acres of land in villages Bir Kheri Gujran 709 G H 710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R. A for development of military cantonment. The Collector by award dated 13th August, 1991 assessed the market value of the ·acquired land @ Rs. 2 lakhs per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 9,05,000 per acre. The High Court reduced the B same to Rs. 105.80 per square yard by order dated 1st April, 1999. In the other set of acq~isition covered by notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 16th September, 1988, for the land measuring 498.03, the Collector by awa;d dated 27th March, 1991, awarded c compensation at the rate of Rs.2 lakh per acre for the. land in villages Kheri Gujran and Bir Kheri Gujran and for the land in villages Sher Majra, Haji Majra and Pasiana at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. The Reference Court by award dated 6th April, 1998 enhanced the compensation D to Rs.2,75,000/- per· acre for the land in villages Kheri Gujran anc! Bir Kheri Gujran. In respect of land in the revenue estate of village Haji Majra, for the land upto 500 meters on Patiala Sangrur Road, compensation was awarded at the same rate but for the rest of the land E compensation was awarded at Rs.2,33,750/- per acre. For villages Pasiana and Sher Majra, the rate awarded was the same as for village Haji Majra. On further appeal, the Single Judge of the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.4,48, 159/- per acre which was affirmed by the Division Bench with slight modification F by way of enhancement. Thus, the Division Bench upheld t~e view of the Single Judge in reducing the compensation from Rs.9,05,000/- per acre, fixed by the Reference Court, to Rs.105.80 per square yard fixed by the Single Judge in respect of the land covered by G notification dated 14th March, 1989 and for the land covered under notification dated 16th September, 1988, the compensation was marginally enhanced to Rs.4,54,662/- per acre. The instant appeals were filed challenging the order of the High Court. H • UNION OF INDIA v. RAJ KUMAR BAGHAL SINGH 711 (DEAD) TH. LRS. Dismissing the appeals, the Court A HELD: It is well settled in determining compensation for acquired land, price paid in a bona fide transaction of sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer is adopted subject to such transaction being .adjacent to acquired land, proximate to the date of acquisition and possessing 8 similar advantages. Of course, there are other well known methods of valuation like opinion of experts and yield method. In absence of any evidence of a similar transaction, it is permissible to take into account transaction of nearest land around the date of notification C under Section 4 of the Act by making a suitable allowance. There can be no fixed criteria as to what wou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.